Reply to post:

UK Parliament's back for Snoopers' Charter. Former head of GCHQ talks to El Reg

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

"He was convinced that I was innocent but because I could not prove it to the level required by the court he did what he could to minimise the sentencing."

An acquaintance had a similar experience. His less than competent solicitors advised him to plead guilty to what they considered an inadvertent "technical" offence. That would mean probation. They said if he went for a jury trial he would get a prison sentence under the mandatory "raising the stakes" rules.

The Crown Court judge was very critical of the prosecution's minimal evidence - and apologised to the defendant for the minimum sentencing rules that he was forced to follow.

It completely destroyed my faith in the police and CPS - especially when talking to a police officer who revealed that the particular police force took pride in being "hard men". Although other officers disapproved of their known unethical behaviour - they still closed ranks to protect their institution.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019